trees:
1) you used the word 'because' which makes all statements after a because (used twice) premises (true fact)
2) therefore, since nothing else was added, your first line is the conclusion. (true fact)
3) the final 2-4 lines were only just explanations of clearing up what you said, so they are not included (you have taken a logic class right?)
If you would like to clarify, it could also be written as:
p1) is exactly what you said. This is standard: turning what you said into categorical form. You need to re-read what you posted.
p2) Same as #1.
conclusion: same as I posted before. Even if we change to 'most' which becomes 'some' in standard form, you commit the fallacy of missing too many terms, but more importantly, draw a particular conclusion from 2 universal premises=fallacy even from Aristotles point of view.
Quit saying I am arguing fiction and re-word if you don't agree. I even showed what I wrote to one of my old professors and they even agreed you need to re word big time. You are defending yourself with explanations such as 'this word changes everything' and the like. What you presented is an argument by the way. You may say this is an explanation, but if someone doesn't agree, they can argue you are wrong=simples.
No trees. You need to see your logic. Each time you say because, you are saying the first thing as your conclusion and each thing after a 'because' is your premise so what I pointed out is exactly what you said.
Also, your last post is circular logic.
(A<-B<-C->B->A is not circular. It was redundant to decrease the likelihood of misunderstanding. It failed.)
Just follow what I say and you'll be logically fine (I specialize in logical form)
1) here is what you said:
Most of the time, people are extremely resistant to change.
Why are people resistant most of the time?
Because there is no reason to change at that time.
Why was there no reason to change at that time?
Because there is rarely a reason to change.
2) Let me put in logical format: (categorical syllogism)
p1: People who don't change beliefs are people with rarely an reasons to.
No. This is nothing like what I said.
p2: People who don't change beliefs are people who have also have no reason to change at the time.
This is closer but still nothing like what I said
C: Therefore: All people who don't change beliefs are people who are extremely resistant to change.
This is nothing like what I said
Unfortunately this is fallacious since you fail to have 2 middle terms and your minor premise is illustrated twice as well as your major premise is not displayed at all.
You need to stop, take an effort to understand, and then evaluate if you agree or disagree. Do not assume you will disagree nor assume that your initial interpretation is accurate.
So a completely unrelated strawman argument was fallacious. Well done North, well done.
Your current mistakes:
1) You skipped over the word "mostly". There is a huge logical difference from "Most mammals are not dogs" and "Mammals are not dogs".
2) You changed "resistant to change" to "do not change". Again this is a huge difference. Not nearly as large as confusing "Most" and "All" but still important.
3) You mistook an explanation for an argument. They use different forms. Compare the difference with "explaining how gravity causes objects to fall" with "proving gravity causes objects to fall".
Sidenote: I can only give you so many chances before the Bayesian evidence points to you intentionally misrepresenting what I write.
1) wouldn't matter as your argument is still fallicious.
2) Re read buddy, I did not re word what you said here.
3) As I said before, don't post explanations that are not assumed facts=arguments.
